Bookman

I'm sorry, M, but your post seems like a non-sequitur to me. You say that this statement of mine:
is indicative of a creationist-like adherance to Dogma and suggest that I correct it by seeking to better understand how the Atkins diet works. I'm sorry but I don't see how one follows the other. (If, on the other hand, you followed my statement with evidence that a calorie controlled, balanced diet doesn't work and I still adhered to my beliefs, that I think would be dogmatic.)

As I said earlier, I accept that the Atkins diet works. I also believe that exercise and calorie control without a particular emphasis on low-carb is good solution for me and will continue to work as well as it has so far.

He's certainly entitled to his own opinion about that. My own opinion is that Americans suffer in great numbers from those things because most Americans are extremely sedentary and suffer from massive hypernutrition. I think its got a lot more to do with McDonalds and Pepsi than with the Food Pyramid.

Do you believe that an average person getting daily exercise (a reasonable amount) and eating the recommendations of the food pyramid at, say, the 2500 calorie amount will be obese?

Bookman

JGL53

This approach also works for other people too. But then others are convinced it doesn't work for them and do low-carb (plus exercise). You are convinced that somehow they are wrong in their evaluations? You have the solution for all people at all times, right?

Oh, not right (I'm suspect you'll reply)? You believe in 'to each his own"? You would never fain to question others individual decisions on diet? Then wherein is our disagreement?

[/B][/QUOTE] He's certainly entitled to his own opinion about that. My own opinion is that Americans suffer in great numbers from those things because most Americans are extremely sedentary and suffer from massive hypernutrition. I think its got a lot more to do with McDonalds and Pepsi than with the Food Pyramid. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again proving that you know little of what you are criticizing. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the French are no less sedentary than Americans, yet they have no obesity problem. So you are WRONG on this intuitive guess of yours.

As to massive hypernutrition, you are right, but you have no understanding of the theory of low carb which provides a methodology which deals realistically with this very problem (for many people - apparently not you).

Some, like you, can just "cut back" across the board. Eat less donuts, eat less ice cream, eat less bread, steak, eggs, cheese, and other high calorie items.

Many people have a hyperinsulin responce to sugar and starch - maybe as many as 60 to 70 per cent of the population, in Atkin's estimate. I certainly react this way. Cutting WAY back on high glycemic carbohydrate rich foods is priority # 1, then eating starchy foods in more moderation, then adding more fiberous non-starchy vegetables to the diet, and eating fruit in moderation. This happens, of course, as one gets into maintenance (please don't do the induction diet IS the Atkin's diet dance anymore, OK?).

Once the insulin production is modified and under control, once the rate of exercise is suitably high, one can eat more (than some imagined tiny amounts of) whole grains, root plants, starchy legumes, and even occasional small servings of suger-sweetened desserts.

Some don't need to utilize the Atkins theory of diet. They are NON-reactive hypoglycemics. You are one, apparently, Bookman. Good for you. I am a reactive hypoglycemic. I must eat differently than you. Now that you understand, we have no disagreement, right?

[/B][/QUOTE] Do you believe that an average person getting daily exercise (a reasonable amount) and eating the recommendations of the food pyramid at, say, the 2500 calorie amount will be obese?

Bookman [/B][/QUOTE]

I will be redundant here to get my point across as strongly as I can so I will not have to repeat myself - again - on this thread.

The answer to your question is "'yes' for some people, 'no' for others".

I fall in the 'no' category. Bookman, you do not. A 'no' is a person who, on a sixty five per cent carbohydrate diet, twenty per cent of which will be sucrose (table sugar), will overproduce insulin (a hyper response) when eating a bolus of sugar/starch, which will result in an abnormal drop in blood sugar, which results in an abnormal appetite. This results in binge and over eating, which results in obesity and it's children HBP, diabetes, fat deposits in the circulatory system, and CHF.

There are TONS of sources besides Atkins books that explain this. Again, this is the way it works for some people, i.e., me but not for other people, e.g., you. (Have I made this abundantly clear yet?)

Bookman, it is obvious you need to educate yourself on this entire subject (I would bet you had never heard of reactive hypoglycemia priviously - right?)

Pain Paien

Again, I have to wonder if your obtuseness is unintentional, or some sort of bizarre rhetorical method.

It is not that you failed to answer 'concerns' I had (since I never asked for any of your wisdom, vast though it surely is), it is that you continuously misrepresent what I write. You have consistently said I asserted things which I did not, and appear to continue doing so with others. I have only stated personal opinion, yet you attack these statements as though I were contesting factual information.

Again, I do not object to your conclusions about the Atkins diet (though I maintain it is not for everyone), I object to your pugnacious and spurious manner of debate. I do, however, hope that your apology was sincere, and that you will attempt to be more level-headed in the future.

Bookman

Where have I said anything remotely like this?

I'm certain that I wouldn't have said any of that in exactly that way, but it is absolutely true that I don't have any vested interest in changing anyone's diet to a plan that works for me.

As to where our disagreement is, I'm not really sure.

This is poor logic. My statement was the combination of massive calorie intake and sedentary lifestyle. Pointing that one of those two criteria is invariant and claiming that is proof that the statement is false is faulty thinking.

I never said this. I have said repeatedly that I accept that the diet works, and nowhere have I said that Atkins wouldn't work for me. I have said that I have an alternative which works for me. Again, you appear to be suffering from hasty judgment.

The only disagreement we have is that you have accepted the above theory as a fact, while I remain skeptical. You do understand that that is not equivalent to saying that I think it is false, right?

Good idea. Why stop now?


Is there research that supports this? We've had studies that were designed to show the efficacy of Atkins...has anyone posted links to studies that show that diets like mine just don't work for some people?

(BTW, you have two choices here. You can accept the above for what it is, an honest inquiry, or you can go off on another rant about how little I must know about the subject. I'd prefer the former.)

BTW, the diet that I'm following is somewhere in the 50-55% calories from carbohydrate. In the above, when you say 20% of the carb is sucrose is that 20% of the 65% (13% of total calories) or 20% of the total? Either way it seems a little high for how I eat, but I don't drink sodas or eat a lot of sweets. I have an underdeveloped "sweet tooth", I suppose.

You would win that bet. I know what hypoglycemia is (my stepfather has it), but I'm unfamiliar with the latter. I think my posts have made it clear that I don't consider myself an expert. I've been attempting to ask questions and frankly don't understand why you are apparently so worked up about it. :shrug:

Bookman

JGL53

Well, thanks for clearing things up. You and I have no disagreement on the facts of this discussion. You have no knowledge whatsoever about any facts concerning diet, you just have 'opinions'. I have misrepresented your 'position'. Your ONLY disagreement with me is my 'pugnacious and spurious manner of debate.

So, you have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone here except 1. sheer opinions based on your passing feelings of the moment and 2. a note that you dislike my methodogy of debate.

Well, thanks for taking the time (and taking up everybody's else's time) for - what?

JGL53

EXACTLY. To avoid getting 'worked up' by your - how should I put it - bizarre rhetorical method and spurious manner of debate -I will ignore your posts (and Pain Paien's also) on this subject from now on. That way apparently is the only way we will avoid any further misunderstandings.

Thanks for the memories.

Bookman

Okay. I'm not at all certain what you consider "bizarre and spurious" about my manner of debate but I do agree that ignoring my posts might be the best plan for you. You seem to be having a very difficult time distinguishing what I'm actually saying from what you imagine I am saying.

:shrug:

Bookman

JGL53

Godot - Even though you are our resident nutritional expert here, I noticed you never commented on the study posted below which I had posted previously on this thread. This study seems to verify Dr.Atkin's claim of a mysterious 'metabolic advantage', i.e., the cohort on a high fat, low carb diet ate 66 per cent more calories than the low fat cohort, yet lost one pound more per week than they did!?!

Your thoughts?


Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S., "Low Carbohydrate Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial,"Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 2000, page 91.


Results of the study, conducted at Schneider Children's Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y., were presented at a meeting of the Society for Adolescent Medicine in Washington, D.C. Marc Jacobson, M.D., reported on his findings, involving children ranging in age from 12 to 18, all of whom were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. He found that teens following a controlled carb plan were more successful in their weight-loss efforts than those following a low-fat, high-carb plan, even though the former ate an average of 730 more calories daily.

Members of the controlled carb group were allowed to eat as many calories as they wanted in the form of meat, fish, fowl and cheese, two salads a day and minimal other carbs. The low-fat group ate fat-free dairy products, whole grains, low-fat meats, poultry and fish and many fruits and vegetables. They were limited to 1,100 calories a day. The results speak for themselves: Teens in the controlled carb group lost an average of 19 pounds during a 12-week period; low-fat dieters averaged 8.5 pounds. The controlled carb group also showed a greater decrease in overall serum cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels were reduced by 52 percent, as compared to a 10 percent drop for the low-fat group. High-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good," cholesterol levels increased in the controlled carb group and decreased in the low-fat group.

Two myths often perpetuated by critics of Atkins were also addressed in this study. Skeptics who don't actually understand the process of lipolysis/ketosis have often stated that the Atkins Nutritional ApproachTM is effective only because fewer calories are consumed. As Atkins followers can attest, they can eat plenty of delicious, whole foods. In the Schneider study, the controlled carb group consumed an average of 1,830 calories a day, 66 percent more than the low-fat group's average, while losing almost 1 pound more per week. Another myth is that Atkins can damage kidneys. Schneider researchers monitored kidney and liver functions and found that they were unaffected by the controlled carb diet.

Dr. Jacobson attributes the weight loss success of the controlled carb dieters to suppressed insulin levels, resulting from carbohydrate restriction. This, in turn, stops the body from "laying down new fat," he says, forcing it to burn fat already accumulated in the body. After three months on a weight-loss plan, study participants followed a maintenance diet that included additional carbohydrates. Six to 12 months later, most of the controlled carb followers had maintained their new weight. The study provides additional evidence for the efficacy of a high-protein, controlled carb weight loss program, specifically for teenagers.

Pain Paien

This is simply another example of a completely baseless attack. You have absolutely no idea what knowledge I possess, as you've spent the entirety of this thread chasing phantom arguments. I interjected one pertinent opinion, and off you went. The point of these forums is the exchange of ideas, which, apparently, you have no interest in. You seem much more interested in engaging your straw men in lengthy diatribes than any sort of rational discussion. Why not make the whole process easier and save everybody time by cutting out the second party altogether? I'm sure you'd be much happier left alone with your straw men, free to rant on endlessly, so why bother with the internet at all?

I also have no idea why you bothered to state you'd be ignoring future posts, when that's clearly been your practice all along.

Godot

I hand't commented on it the first go-round because I wasn't entirely convinced of the impartiality of the reporting as it is written. Before commenting on it this time, I tried searching for it in Volume 26 of the journal you cited. It wasn't there. Are you sure you had the citation right? Ideally, you'd give us a hyperlink.
I refuse to comment on the reporting until I can get a closer look at the results section, statistics, and methodology used in the study. I will offer this though: a single study using teenage participants cannot be extrapolated to the population in general, partially due to the differing nutritional requirements of teens and pre-teens from adults. If it turns out to be true, I'd be interested to see what physiological process is advanced to explain the phenomena.